{
  "id": 8659632,
  "name": "STATE v. J. E. DOSTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Doster",
  "decision_date": "1911-12-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "634",
  "last_page": "637",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "157 N.C. 634"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "7 Md., 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Md.",
      "case_ids": [
        1013360
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/md/7/0135-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N. C., 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654997
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/116/0502-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 336,
    "char_count": 5515,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.443,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4984118870305642e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6652026817007478
    },
    "sha256": "44c2daecd4f976c4ca1dc393e26e685dd9546b690b2948d04b42784405be3ba5",
    "simhash": "1:d2a86fa9cf76dda9",
    "word_count": 912
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:03.195282+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. J. E. DOSTER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hoke, J.\nThe act establishing the recorder\u2019s court for the city of Monroe, Laws 1907, ch. 860, in section 4, subsec. 3, confers upon said court exclusive original jurisdiction of all criminal offenses within Monroe Township in said county of Union \u201cwhich are now or may hereafter be within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.\u201d Section 3842 creates an offense which is within the ordinary jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, and if the act in question is valid the position of defendant must be sustained. The Constitution, Article IY, sec. 27, among other things provides that \u201cThe several justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction of all criminal matters arising within their counties where the punishment cannot exceed a fine of $50 or imprisonment for thirty days.\u201d\nIn S. v. Baskerville the Court held that this provision as to jurisdiction, otherwise peremptory, was so far modified by section 14 of the same article, that authorizing the General Assembly to establish special courts for the trial of misdemeanors in cities and towns, that such courts could be given exclusive jurisdiction of all proper offenses committed within the incorporate limits of the city or town where the same were properly established.\nIn Baslcerville\u2019s case the offense was committed within the incorporate limits and the exclusive jurisdiction given by statute to the recorder\u2019s court was to that extent upheld. The principles of construction approved in Baslcerville\u2019s case and the conclusion reached are set forth in the opinion as follows: \u201cIt is well established that an act of the Legislature will never be declared unconstitutional unless it plainly and clearly appears that the General Assembly has exceeded its powers. Sutton v. Phillips, 116 N. C., 502; S. v. Lytle, supra.\u201d It is also an accepted canon of' construction that in case of ambiguity the whole Constitution is to be examined in order to determine the meaning of any part, and the construction is to be such as to give effect to the entire instrument and not to raise any conflict between its parts which can be avoided. Black on Interpretation of Laws, p. 17, clause 10, citing Cooley Const. Lim., p. 58, and Manly v. State, 7 Md., 135. And the same idea is expressed by our Court in S. v. Pender, supra, where the judge says: It is the duty of the courts of this State, and one which the Court has endeavored faithfully- and impartially to perform, to give to the Constitution such an interpretation as will harmonize all of the parts, and without violating any leading idea in it as a whole. From the principles here stated and the decisions of our courts, from the language of-the Constitution itself, and considering the two sections together and giving to each its proper effect, we think it a correct deduction and hold it to be the law that: (a) Section 27, Article IV, conferring jurisdiction on justices of the peace, is so modified by section 14 of the same article as to authorize and empower the Legislature to establish special courts in cities and towns and give them exclusive jurisdiction of misdemeanors committed within the corporate limits of the same. Applying the principles approved in Basherville\u2019s case to the facts presented here, we think it follows as a necessary conclusion that'when, as in this case, the offense is committed outside of the corporate limits of the city, the general provision of the Constitution conferring criminal jurisdiction on justices of the peace must prevail. And the act establishing the recorder\u2019s court in so far as it attempts to confer exclusive jurisdiction on such offenses occurring outside the city limits must be declared invalid.\nThere is no error, and the judgment of his Honor must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hoke, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General T. W. Bickett and George L. J ones, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.",
      "J. J. Parker for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. J. E. DOSTER.\n(Filed 20 December, 1911.)\n1. Recorder\u2019s Courts \u2014 Jurisdiction Exclusive \u2014 Legislative Powers\u2014 Corporate Limits \u2014 Constitutional Law.\nSection 27, Article IV of the State Constitution, as modified by-section 14 of the same article, authorizes and empowers the Legislature to establish special courts in cities and towns and give them exclusive jurisdiction of misdemeanors committed within the corporate limits.\n2. Same.\nAn act creating a recorder\u2019s court for an incorporated town, conferring exclusive jurisdiction over offenses cognizable in courts of a justice of the peace, is void in so far as it seeks to extend the jurisdiction and make the same exclusive as to such offenses committed in the township beyond the .corporate limits of the town.\nAppeal from Cooke, J., at Fall Terra, 1911, of UNION.\nCriminal action beard on appeal from justice\u2019s court.\nOn the trial it appeared that defendant on 29 October, 1911, tbe said date being Sunday, was found off bis premises and having a shotgun, etc., witbin Monroe Township and outside of the city of Monroe, contrary to Eevisal, sec. 3842. That on warrant issued by M. L. Flow, a justice of the peace of Monroe Township, resident within the city of Monroe, defendant was convicted for said offense, and on appeal to the Superior Court was again convicted and sentenced. Defendant having raised question by motion to quash the indictment, etc., moved in arrest of judgment that under the statute establishing the recorder\u2019s court for the city of Monroe, a justice of the peace had no 'jurisdiction to try the offense. Motion denied, and defendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney-General T. W. Bickett and George L. J ones, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.\nJ. J. Parker for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0634-01",
  "first_page_order": 674,
  "last_page_order": 677
}